To travel north of Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, is to enter a graveyard of the Russian army. When I was there in 2023, the battlefield had been largely cleaned up, and the villages were coming back to life. But the signs of mortal struggle were everywhere. Buildings were pocked with bullet holes, some were reduced to piles of rubble, and I could still spot the occasional hulk of a destroyed Russian tank.

A year earlier, the scene was different. Russia had just retreated, and bodies were lying in front of ruined homes. There were so many destroyed Russian tanks in the streets, The Associated Press reported, that their charred remains had left a “layer of black dust” that covered the suburbs. It was a scene of carnage more suitable for World War II than for a prosperous suburb outside a modern European capital.

It was all a monument to Russia’s colossal failure.

This was not supposed to happen. The Russian military had spent enormous sums modernizing its forces. It had enjoyed success in a much more limited conflict in Syria. In 2014, it had taken Crimea while hardly firing a shot. The Ukrainian military was supposed to be outmatched and outgunned.

What happened? It’s a complicated story, but one lesson is clear: A military and intelligence apparatus organized around pleasing the boss is ripe for catastrophic failure. As a 2023 analysis in Foreign Policy found, Russian President Vladimir Putin “sits atop an intelligence and policy machinery that tells him only what he wants to hear.”

So Putin walked into war thinking that Ukraine was more fragile than it really was, that Ukrainians actually wanted Russian rule and that the Russian military was more capable than it proved to be. But that’s what happens when a national security establishment prioritizes political loyalty over professional excellence — armies fail and many, many people die.

Not just a question of competence

It’s a mistake to think of the Trump administration’s Signal scandal — in which top officials discussed sensitive military plans on an unsecured civilian messaging app — as merely a problem of competence or even a problem of corruption. It’s much worse than that.

Let’s look at the Signal chat in context. Days after President Donald Trump took office in January, he fired the Pentagon’s inspector general, who is often a watchdog of last resort for soldiers who call out corruption or face unfairness or injustice in the ranks.

Then, immediately after Pete Hegseth assumed office as secretary of defense, the administration fired the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of naval operations, the vice chief of the Air Force and the top JAG generals at the Air Force, the Army and the Navy.

They were not relieved because they were corrupt or insubordinate, or because they had failed on the battlefield. The only discernible reason was that they were perceived to be out of political alignment with the administration.

And the JAG generals, like the inspectors general, are also crucial instruments of accountability.

Hegseth has trumpeted his early tenure as turning the page on woke, as a sign of a more lethal military that is laser-focused on America’s enemies — a true military meritocracy.

Then he went and committed an extraordinary violation of operational security, a violation so dangerous that Navy pilots are furious that he put their lives at risk.

By putting operational plans in a civilian chat app (with a journalist present!), he risked leaking some of the most sensitive military information that exists: the timing and targets of an attack. Had the Houthis or their Iranian allies obtained that information, they could have prepared for the attack, they could have launched their own preemptive strike, and they could have moved targeted assets and individuals to a more secure location.

But a security breach is a problem. It doesn’t create a crisis if it’s handled properly. At the very least, this should mean a Justice Department investigation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced an FBI investigation when classified information was found on her private email server.

When Sandy Berger, former President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, took classified documents from the National Archives, he was prosecuted. So was former CIA Director David Petraeus when he improperly shared classified information with his mistress. The Department of Justice under President Joe Biden appointed a special counsel to investigate Biden when classified documents were found in his home.

So how did Pam Bondi, Trump’s attorney general, respond? She all but dismissed the possibility of an investigation and pivoted to condemning Hillary Clinton. Even if you believe that Clinton should have faced prosecution (as I do), the response to the failure of the Department of Justice under President Barack Obama isn’t to lower standards even further.

Professional vs. political

The difference between the U.S. and Russian militaries is easy to articulate. At its core, the U.S. military is professional. The Russian military is political. That doesn’t mean that the Russian military doesn’t have professional elements; it’s that when push comes to shove, political loyalty is the ultimate value.

You can reach the highest heights if you have unwavering loyalty to Putin. If you do not, then you can forfeit your career (and even your life). Traditionally in the U.S. military, politics is irrelevant to your advancement. And if politics does intrude, it’s seen as a grave breach of the military ethos.

It’s rare to even know the political affiliation of U.S. admirals and generals. When Dwight D. Eisenhower retired from the Army, for example, both parties courted him to be their presidential nominee.

According to the soldier’s creed, a U.S. soldier isn’t just a warrior; he’s a guardian of “the American way of life.” One does not defend the American way of life by contradicting and violating fundamental American principles of political freedom and accountability.

Trump’s presidency is fundamentally anti-system. If there is anything that unites his coalition (apart from love of Trump), it’s the desire to disrupt, to break things, to smash the system. But what if the system that he’s breaking happens to be the best in the world?

No one should argue that the military is perfect. I spent eight years as a JAG officer, and I had to respond to several incidents of serious misconduct. But one thing I never questioned was the vast majority of my peers’ core commitment to honor and courage.

Their honor and courage made me regret that I didn’t join the military sooner. I joined later in life, and went to officer basic training when I was 37 years old. When I arrived at Fort Lee in May 2006, I realized immediately that I’d made the right decision. Serving my country alongside those men and women was the great honor of my life.

Indeed, it’s the ordinary service member’s commitment to honor and courage that gives me optimism that the military can resist Trump’s worst depravity — at least for a time. But if the MAGA ethos governs the military long enough and ruthlessly enough, then the military will warp and change in response.

The path to promotion will run through political subservience as long as Trump and Hegseth are in charge, especially at the highest levels of command. For example, witness Trump bragging that his choice for chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wore a MAGA hat and said he “loved” Trump and would “kill” for him — a possibly fictional story that nonetheless illustrates Trump’s priorities perfectly.

The illusion of Russian prowess

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, several leading Trumpists developed a strange fascination with the Russian army. They contrasted masculine Russian recruitment ads, which featured chiseled Russian soldiers displaying their martial prowess, with much softer American ads on social media.

The Russians were masculine and tough, they said. Americans were woke and weak. But the illusion of Russian prowess was shattered on those battlefields north of Kyiv. There is much more to military strength than physicality and bravado. Ukraine, the much smaller representative of the so-called woke West, has turned much of Russia’s conventional arsenal into smoking ruins.

It’s telling that Hegseth is turning to martial, masculine symbolism to save his career. He’s putting out images of himself working out with Navy SEALs, as if his fitness can cover for his carelessness and incompetence.

Sure, service members like it when senior leaders work out alongside them, but they like it much more when senior leaders live by the same standards they impose on their troops. They also like it much more when senior leaders can keep the nation’s most precious secrets.

David French writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

David Brooks: Stagnation Day might be more like it

Suzanne Nossel: Remember when it was the right that got outraged over ‘banned words’?

Thomas Friedman: I just saw the future. It was not in America

David M. Drucker: Congress began ceding power to presidents long before Trump

Barbara McQuade: Nationwide injunctions are a problem. Ending them isn’t the answer

The old argument for higher taxes

Once again we get the same old “if only the wealthy would pay their fair share” argument from DFLers who are always eager to raise taxes. They never define what “fair share” means (or what “wealthy” means for that matter.) But we all know that it is always much more than whatever they pay now.

In Tuesday’s Pioneer Press, House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman was quoted saying, “If Democrats were setting (budget) targets on our own, these targets would, of course, look very different. We would have asked the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share in order to make additional needed investments” — the word “investments” always a euphemism for more spending — “in public education and affordable healthcare.”

Perhaps Leader Hortman needs reminding that, with the sixth-highest top tax bracket rate, we already have one of the most progressive of state income tax regimes in the nation. Or maybe she needs reminding about income tax rates in our neighboring states, with whom we compete to attract business and investment: North Dakota’s top rate is 2.5%, Iowa’s at 3.8%, Wisconsin at 7.7%, and of course South Dakota with no state income tax.

Don Jacobson, Shoreview

 

We can see the results coming

I have a message for the recent letter writer, and everyone else who urges people to “give Trump a chance” and let his policies play out before passing judgment. Although you may need to see the results of his actions in the real world in order to understand them, people in the know do not. Economists know how to predict the effect that tariffs on foreign imports will have on the price of goods sold in the U.S.  They also know how to predict the economic effects of lowering taxes on the wealthy and increasing unemployment by firing many thousands of government workers.  Medical researchers know how to predict the resulting rates of illness and death if funding is cut for preventive measures like vaccines and for research.  Environmental scientists know how to predict the degree to which air and water pollution will increase if environmental protections are lifted. And the list goes on and on.

We can’t possibly understand all of the details that make up the complex world we live in.  All we can do is rely on the knowledge of the people who’ve dedicated their careers to an area of study, and now is the time for us to listen to those people.  We don’t need to actually destroy our economy, or democracy itself, to know that’s where this administration is leading us.

Lori Wohlrabe, St. Louis Park

 

Fears

If I were a parent in Sweden or Japan, I would be afraid to send my child to an American university, where they can be disappeared for expressing an opinion.

John Evans, St. Paul

 

Making America Corrupt Again?

In the first 70 days of his second term, President Trump is rapidly trying to implement his vision of Making America Corrupt Again.  His actions have attempted to undo a century’s-worth of laws and institutions put in place to prevent conflicts of interest and abuse of power. Trump is rapidly breaking down the rule of law for his personal gain.

One example is the elimination of “watchdogs” — people and organizations set up to hold our leaders accountable to the laws of our nation. Trump fired inspectors general and prosecutors, eliminating independent checks on his actions. He removed the leader of the Office of Special Counsel. He fired the head of the government’s ethics office without cause. He fired top military leaders so that he cannot be challenged in his unconstitutional plans.

Trump has taken actions to protect himself by using the Justice Department as his personal law firm to defend him and attack his opponents. He also pardoned the violent Jan. 6 criminals, showing them that they can commit violence in support of him without legal consequences.

Trump and Elon Musk have tried to control the media and free press so that he doesn’t face scrutiny for his actions: lawsuits against public media companies, “CBS should lose their license”, controlling social media X and Trump Social, and trying to “rescue” Tik-Tok so that it will serve their purposes.

Trump ignores conflicts of interest. He brazenly aligns policies with his and his favorites’ business interests with schemes of personal enrichment. Examples: Gaz-a-Lago, and Donald and Melania’s novelty crypto currencies which allow people seeking influence or favors to give them unlimited amounts of money without any public record — the ultimate in corruption. Also, Trump’s and his Commerce Secretary’s open promotion of Musk’s Tesla cars and stock. Trump has put a stop to enforcing anti-money laundering laws to protect his shell companies.

Trump has opened the doors for international actors to influence him by gutting enforcement of statutes against foreign influence and suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He is strengthening his alignment with notorious corrupt leaders such as Russia’s Putin.

Many of these actions appear to be illegal and are being challenged in court.

While Trump claimed President Biden was corrupt, he produced no convincing evidence. But we all can see Trump’s actions toward a completely corrupt presidency. We The People must not allow this.

Chris Lyons, St. Paul

 

How do teachers pensions compare?

What did I find missing in the  March 30 article, “Bills would change teachers pension rules“? Any discussion of how teachers pensions compared to others in the public or private sectors. Rather, just a listing of statements that the current system was not sufficient.

How can one know that unless one compares it to pensions in other job categories? A quick internet search leads to AI generated statements like the following:

The percentage of workers covered by a traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plan that pays a lifetime annuity, often based on years of service and final salary, has been steadily declining over the past 25 years and while most private sector pensions do not provide any inflation adjustments to benefit payments, a majority of state and local government pensions provide adjustments; for the majority of retirees the lack of indexing of defined benefit pensions is obvious; millions of households have seen the purchasing power of their benefits decline by more than 20 percent.

So I would appeal to our state legislators, before you agree to spend more money, please convince me that the current teachers pension program is not competitive with other retirement programs.

Ed Erickson, Woodbury

 

Since state workers don’t want to come back to work …

Since State Workers would rather remain in their pods than come to work, I propose we compromise on the issue. Let the State of Minnesota repurpose its unused office buildings on the state Capitol grounds in St. Paul instead as homeless shelters, mental health resources, drug treatment centers, and needle exchanges.

Even better, let them give the drug dealers who currently inhabit the downtown area immunity from prosecution as long as they limit their selling activities to the state capitol grounds. Let the state senators and house representatives run the gauntlet when they come to work to vote against anti-poverty or drug treatment programs. Remind them that they, unlike the rest of the state government workers, cannot flee so easily back to their pastoral homes in order to escape the uncomfortable economic realities of their state.

Maybe a few years ago such a bold directive would have been impossible. It would have been more safely framed in the manner of Jonathan Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal.” However, things have changed in the last few months. Now we just have to say that “no immigrants are involved” and the federal government will look the other way.

Such a move would make policy-sense as well, regardless of what side of the issue one stands. It provides additional shelter for the unhoused and consolidates treatment centers and clients into one defined area. It gives downtown St. Paul some much needed breathing space to proceed with its conversion to a mixed-use neighborhood. And most importantly, it gives state workers an opportunity to feel good about themselves — at least until AI replaces them.

Alex Jeffries, St. Paul

 

Loyalty over competence

The Peter Principle is only applied to those that get promoted. Now it seems to also apply to those that get appointed or elected. One would think if you were looking for a person or persons to fill a position your search would require someone that is completely capable of the task.

When filling the US Cabinet positions the requirements focused more on loyalty than competence. I would also apply it to those who voted to support their appointment. The ones who I call the enablers.

I know some, but not all, of elected senators knew better. I would have a different name for them. The ones who didn’t know better I believe could be included in “The Peter Principle of Maximum Incompetence“ along with some of the peoplethey confirmed.

Tom Kapsner, White Bear Lake

Related Articles

St. Paul resident federally indicted in MS-13 gang-related murder in Florida

Como Park Zoo visitors witness birth of baby sloth

Inver Grove Heights man cited for damaging Easter display outside Capitol

Como Planetarium to celebrate 50 years at April 17 ‘star party’

St. Paul City Council fails — again — to fill Ward 4 seat

The University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents approved new men’s basketball coach Niko Medved’s contract in a special meeting Friday.

The Regents reviewed and approved Medved’s deal by a 9-0 vote, with three members absent. In a video call to the governing body, Gophers athletics director Mark Coyle presented Medved’s six-year, $18.5 million contract through 2031.

The biggest addition from the memo of understanding signed by Medved on March 24 is the buyout terms to be paid to Medved’s previous school, Colorado State. The contract says the U will cover the cost of $2.55 million. The memo said it would pay “up to and not exceed” $3.1 million.

Another additional element is a built-in contract extension stating Medved will receive a one-time, one-year extension if the university receives an NCAA Tournament invitation, wins the Big Ten regular-season or conference tournament title, or finishes in the Top 4 in the Big Ten regular season in any contract year.

A carry-over clause from the memo to the contract says after the second year, a 60-day window will allow for a “good faith review” of the agreement to “determine whether enhancements should be made.” This is when a more lucrative or lengthy extension might come.

Salary and buyout terms with the U were unchanged from the memo to the contract.

Medved’s $3 million total annual compensation ranks near the bottom when compared to other Big Ten men’s basketball coaches. His salary will include $100,000 annual increases to max out at $3.5 million on 2030-31 season.

If Medved leaves the U to accept any coaching position, he owes the U $10 million in Year 1; $7 million in Year 2; $5 million in Year 3; $3 million in Year 4; $500,000 in Year 5; $0 in Year 6.

If the U terminates Medved’s contract without cause in the first three contract years, the fee is equal to the full amount of remaining total compensation if he remained employed for the full term of the deal. If notice is given after Year 3, the U will pay a fee of 75% of the remaining total compensation on the contract.

Related Articles

Gophers seek naming-rights deal for Williams Arena as financial needs grow

Gophers men’s basketball welcomes two new players Wednesday

How Gophers coach Niko Medved will go into the NCAA transfer portal

Two Gophers recruits back out of men’s basketball program

Niko Medved’s path to Gophers included steering him off hockey rinks

By ALEXA ST. JOHN

DETROIT (AP) — President Donald Trump’s tariff blitz has sent shock waves throughout every aspect of the global economy, including the auto sector, where multi-billion-dollar plans to electrify in the United States are especially at risk.

Related Articles

Woodbury launches a new visitors bureau and website

Federal Reserve chief says Trump tariffs likely to raise inflation and slow US economic growth

How Trump’s latest tariffs could affect your wallet

Sell-off worsens worldwide and Dow drops 1,300 after China retaliates against Trump tariffs

US added 228,000 jobs in March as economy showed strength in buildup to Trump trade wars

Here’s what consumers should know about the impact of tariffs on electric vehicles.

Where does EV adoption stand in the U.S.?

EVs accounted for about 8% of new car sales in the U.S. in 2024, according to Motorintelligence.com.

Some of those sales can be attributed to expanded tax credits for EV purchases, a Biden-era policy that spurred car buyer interest.

Tesla held a majority of U.S. EV market share in 2024, at 48%. But that share has declined in recent years, as brands including Ford (7.5%), Chevrolet (5.2%) and Hyundai (4.7%) began to offer a wider variety of electric models at better price points, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Electric vehicles remain more expensive than their gasoline-powered equivalents. New gas vehicles sold for $48,039 on average last month, Kelly Blue Book data says, while EVs sold for $55,273 on average.

Tariffs add on to the costs of an EV transition that was already volatile and uncertain, said Vanessa Miller, a litigation partner focused on automotive manufacturing at law firm Foley & Lardner.

What makes U.S. EV manufacturing so challenging?

Biden’s tax credits essentially required automakers to get more and more of their EV content from the U.S. or trade allies over the coming years in order for their vehicles to qualify. Automakers have worked to build an EV supply chain across the country and significant investment has gone toward these efforts.

File – Vehicles move along the 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV assembly line at the General Motors Orion Assembly on June 15, 2023, in Lake Orion, Mich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)

EVs assembled here include Tesla models, the Ford F-150 Lightning and more. Tesla actually might be least vulnerable given how much of its vehicles come from the U.S.

Though the industry is growing, tariffs mean costs for automakers and their buyers will stay high and might go higher, as well as hike up the prices of the many parts of EVs still coming from China and elsewhere. From the critical minerals used in battery production to the vehicles themselves, China laps the U.S. industry.

Automakers were already pulling back on ambitious electrification plans amid shrinking federal support and are strapped for cash on what is the less lucrative side of their businesses.

What do the tariffs mean for EV pricing and inventory?

Higher prices might push car buyers to the used car market, but they aren’t likely to find much respite there.

If consumers don’t buy as many vehicles, automakers will have to prioritize their investments and manufacturing. That means the cars that buyers want and that are most profitable. Automakers still lose thousands of dollars on each EV they make and sell, but they make money from big, popular gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs.

These manufacturers “have put a certain amount of investment into EVs, and it would probably be even more wasteful to completely walk away from them than it is to find the new level at which it makes sense to maintain production of them,” said Karl Brauer, executive analyst at auto research site iSeeCars.com. That level “will assuredly be lower than what it was,” he added.

Making fewer EVs won’t help bring their cost down further anytime soon.

Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, said in a statement the EV and battery sector is working to ensure that the American auto industry grows and that his group will work with the administration on productive trade policy.

“Tariffs on our longstanding trade partners, many of whom have committed billions in direct investment into U.S. factories, introduces uncertainty and risk into an industry that is creating jobs and bringing new economic opportunities to communities across the country,” Gore said.

How else have Trump’s policies stifled U.S. EV growth?

Trump has already taken a hatchet to federal EV policy. He campaigned on a vow to end what he called former President Joe Biden’s “EV mandate.”

Biden’s EV policies did not require automakers to sell EVs or consumers to buy them, but they did incentivize manufacturers to increase their electric offerings in the coming years. Trump put an end to Biden’s target for 50% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2035 in his first days in office.

Also under Biden, Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy were to get increasingly tougher, but could be met by automakers selling a growing number of EVs alongside more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles. Trump’s administrators are already reevaluating emissions standards.

He’s also likely to seek to repeal the tax credits.

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.